Why I love Neil de Grasse Tyson. Interviewed by Ben Shapiro

[Pens1566]

Shapiro is a fucking clown. Anyone that takes him seriously is as well.

This is the guy that thought the solution to rising ocean levels was for owners of beachfront property to just sell, and he also thought that women's vaginas getting wet was a medical problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Shapiro is a fucking clown. Anyone that takes him seriously is as well.

This is the guy that thought the solution to rising ocean levels was for owners of beachfront property to just sell, and he also thought that women's vaginas getting wet was a medical problem.

It's weird that someone who has spent as much time arguing about climate change as Shapiro has was so ignorant of basic facts. Like no...we can't just all move inland (or at least not at an acceptable price) because a large majority of the world's most important cities are coastal. You can't just rebuild NYC 50 miles inland.

Second, and even worse, was that Shapiro seemed to think that we could see the rising seas coming and slowly adapt to them as they rose, not realizing the way these events really happen is that you get something like Sandy where one day NYC is fine and the next day half of Manhattan is flooded.

Scary to see the level of incompetence that is passed off as the smart right wing guys.

 

[Moonbeam]

oops

 

[dank69]

...

Scary to see the level of incompetence that is passed off as the smart right wing guys.

This is worth repeating. These are some of the smartest people the right can muster.

 

[nakedfrog]

Yaknow, it's hard to take seriously an illiberal aristocratic academic elitist who tries to change his external reality by preaching to other people that they shouldn't try to change their external realities until they've fixed themselves internally.. and then almost kills himself from anti-anxiety medication overdose. We're all imperfect. I get that, and am not judging. I'm just adverse to hypocrisy. Especially the kind of hypocrisy that is cynically crafted to oppress and otherwise keep people down.
The most powerful and influential people in this world have never waited until they were cured before to create change in the world around them. Not even Jordan Peterson. And I am confident he knows good and goddamned well what a hypocrite for pushing that BS.

This is also the same Jordan Peterson that went to Russia to be in an induced coma to handle his addiction withdrawal.

The sin of pride refers to excessive self-regard, not the existence of any self-regard at all, so basically that destroys your entire argument.

It is continually amusing to me that you think that Jordan 'there's no such thing as climate' Peterson as anything other than a poseur and a grifter.

He's also clearly referring to Pride month and gay/trans pride and conflating it with the old school "deadly sin", with the implication that we should remain ashamed of not being cisgender and/or heterosexual.

 

[fskimospy]

This is also the same Jordan Peterson that went to Russia to be in an induced coma to handle his addiction withdrawal.

He's also clearly referring to Pride month and gay/trans pride and conflating it with the old school "deadly sin", with the implication that we should remain ashamed of not being cisgender and/or heterosexual.

This is a good point - the entire purpose of pride month was to teach queer people that they didn't have to be ashamed of themselves and Peterson is equating not feeling ashamed with being sinfully prideful. What a piece of shit.

 

[sandorski]

Shapiro is a fucking clown. Anyone that takes him seriously is as well.

This is the guy that thought the solution to rising ocean levels was for owners of beachfront property to just sell, and he also thought that women's vaginas getting wet was a medical problem.

His Wife is a Doctor, Sir!!

 

[Pens1566]

His Wife is a Doctor, Sir!!

That has had several children ... apparently with an entirely dry vagina.

 

[Moonbeam]

People don’t really care about Trump’s hubris. That part of him is a joke. He gets criticism because he is a racist asshole. An incompetent one.

Peterson wants to be the arbitrator of how people want to be referred. Same argument could be made when black people no longer wanted to be called Negro

I’ll tell you a personal story that I think sums this up. 25 years ago after a softball game having a few beers I referred to a cute Asian girl as oriental. She looked at me calmly and said, “I’m a person not a rug”. I never made that faux pas again and took no offense. I was thinking of asking her out before that. Ejected that idea.

Jordan Peterson fancies himself as the smartest guy in the room. Isn’t that the height of prideful?

I am sorry I lost the reply I made to this post of yours. I never like what I say if I have to do it over again.

 

[Moonbeam]

He cares because being conservative is his job. He feeds pablum to the idiots and they send him money. He does the same thing as Candace Owens but is better at it. She thought be a self loathing black woman would be more profitable because righties love black people that turn on their own.

I see nothing in his remarks on his twitter ban to suggest he is a conservative, that what he has to say is pablum or that he does what he does for money. These look to me to be opinions you had prior to this. You may be right but I don't get that from the link. I see an argument based on the proposition that pride is not a good thing.

 

[Moonbeam]

The sin of pride refers to excessive self-regard, not the existence of any self-regard at all, so basically that destroys your entire argument.

It is continually amusing to me that you think that Jordan 'there's no such thing as climate' Peterson as anything other than a poseur and a grifter.

It was not my argument. My argument was that his argument is internally consistent and logical if you subscribe to the notion that pride is a sin. I have no quibble with your desire to distinguish between healthy self respect and excessive self -regard.
I do not, however, see him making that mistake. He seems quite specific in his charges. Can you describe where you see him going wrong in that regard in the link?

I am also not basing my view on his position with regard to twitter on what you say his position on what climate change is. I might agree with you were I to see it for myself. As I said, I am not going to base my assessment on the validity of one statement on one topic based on what somebody said or is reported to have said on a different one not under consideration. For me, from there, it would be an easy step to just shooting people I disagree with.

 

[Moonbeam]

That has had several children ... apparently with an entirely dry vagina.

Are you claiming to be the mother of one or more of them? Apparently he has also rubbed you the wrong way.

 

[HomerJS]

I see nothing in his remarks on his twitter ban to suggest he is a conservative, that what he has to say is pablum or that he does what he does for money. These look to me to be opinions you had prior to this. You may be right but I don't get that from the link. I see an argument based on the proposition that pride is not a good thing.

I got that opinion from other things he's done. He was fairly neutral in his Tyson interview. Like I mentioned he tried to do the conservative thing a few times and Tyson cleverly shut it down.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's weird that someone who has spent as much time arguing about climate change as Shapiro has was so ignorant of basic facts. Like no...we can't just all move inland (or at least not at an acceptable price) because a large majority of the world's most important cities are coastal. You can't just rebuild NYC 50 miles inland.

Second, and even worse, was that Shapiro seemed to think that we could see the rising seas coming and slowly adapt to them as they rose, not realizing the way these events really happen is that you get something like Sandy where one day NYC is fine and the next day half of Manhattan is flooded.

Scary to see the level of incompetence that is passed off as the smart right wing guys.

There may be something to this if in the interview Tyson was aware of Shapiro's record on climate change and directed his replies in reference to what he knew about Shapiro's thinking. But, on the other hand, were I to see a person who held such uninformed opinions, I would think it of value to try to explain to them where they were being short sighted. It seems wise to me to at least try to give people a deeper understanding if you believe they are missing important facts. It seems a different way of acting to ridicule somebody for their ignorance and to want to help them have a better understanding.

This reminds me also of the constant implication I just can't grasp that people who argue from a conservative perspective all know they are wrong and are just posing or grifting etc. I see motivated ignorance and the solution to which is changing the motivation by bringing it into consciousness first. Nobody wants to be told they are worthless because they already feel it, but some might like to know before they open a door to that awareness that the feeling is there but it isn't actually true.

 

[Moonbeam]

I got that opinion from other things he's done. He was fairly neutral in his Tyson interview. Like I mentioned he tried to do the conservative thing a few times and Tyson cleverly shut it down.

He asked him why he cared. Knowing the answer to that changes everything. We do not want to know why we care, those of us who are crusaders. We do not want to shine a bright light on the objectivity of our sacred cows. If you don't have them you see that easily as why others go down the paths they do. I see in Tyson a faith that life is wonderful and doesn't need his help, It's there to blow your mind, to experience wonder. It's not an easy place for the internally haunted to reach.

 

[fskimospy]

There may be something to this if in the interview Tyson was aware of Shapiro's record on climate change and directed his replies in reference to what he knew about Shapiro's thinking. But, on the other hand, were I to see a person who held such uninformed opinions, I would think it of value to try to explain to them where they were being short sighted. It seems wise to me to at least try to give people a deeper understanding if you believe they are missing important facts. It seems a different way of acting to ridicule somebody for their ignorance and to want to help them have a better understanding.

This reminds me also of the constant implication I just can't grasp that people who argue from a conservative perspective all know they are wrong and are just posing or grifting etc. I see motivated ignorance and the solution to which is changing the motivation by bringing it into consciousness first. Nobody wants to be told they are worthless because they already feel it, but some might like to know before they open a door to that awareness that the feeling is there but it isn't actually true.

I'm not saying what Tyson did was wrong, I just find it incredible that Shapiro is so ignorant after so long.

 

[Pens1566]

Are you claiming to be the mother of one or more of them? Apparently he has also rubbed you the wrong way.

<pats head> move along ...

 

[Moonbeam]

<pats head> move along ...

What, cheep shots aren't to your liking depending on who the target is?

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not saying what Tyson did was wrong, I just find it incredible that Shapiro is so ignorant after so long.

I was trying to say that you may not be wrong regarding the depth of Shapiro's ignorance. I am just saying that I didn't pick up on it in the Tyson Shapiro link but it could have been evident to you, or perhaps you brought your awareness of Shapiro's ignorance from what you have previously know about him. If the latter perhaps it helped you to see in the interview what I didn't see. At any rate the notions you ascribe to Shapiro remind me of typical conservative low level thinking and their blindness regarding their ego need not to deal with truth that affects their ego security. If climate disaster is in our future it might mean not only that they are wrong but immoral in their desire to pretend nothing needs to be done that might cost them something.

I like the expression, "From a snake expect snake behavior." I hear in it, "From a conservative expect conservative behavior." What I see in conservatives is a far greater range of moral concerns than liberals have implying a far greater number of moral beliefs they can have that are the product of indoctrination rather than common old fashioned sound traditions containing experientially derived tried and true wisdom. What I see in liberals is a greater capacity to see bull shit in those moral concerns they do not have when in fact they are full of bull shit but to completely miss their survival value when they are sound. I can't say I am surprised to see this in people as it looks quite logical to expect it.

One such value would be that pride is a sin. I recently ran into another term I think works, 'knowingness'. There are two ways I see that kind of pride in operation here. One is the belief that one's own personal beliefs represent the truth those moral values contain and the other is that anybody who has different moral values than they do is wrong whatever they believe.

When either of these kinds of knowingness or pride are present, no real conversation about what morality is can happen. I see failure in this regard on the left and the right.

When I describe conservatives as bigots, people who imagine their knowingness as to what is good isn't good at all, they suspect me of trying to steal their self respect, the righteousness that makes they good people. When I tell liberals they don't understand the value of conservative moral concerns they accuse me of being a believer in ancient nonsense.

And I also believe that as the divide between left and right grows the greater insecurity it will generate including a resort to violence to prove one's self right. Everything is perfect when you have lost the need for it to be. You can't control the Wheel of Karma but you can step off of it.

 

[Pens1566]

What, cheep shots aren't to your liking depending on who the target is?

Just nonsense from you TBH.

 

[cytg111]

Bye. Sorry if the Peterson thing didn’t work out so well. I know you hadn’t anticipated your bias would so easily reveal itself to be shallow. Maybe don’t bother to react to my posts if you aren’t serious about hashing them out.

The guy with no ego is unable to admit a wrong. Goddamn dude you are so far down the rabbit hole of your own superiority… it’s hilarious.

 

[Moonbeam]

The guy with no ego is unable to admit a wrong. Goddamn dude you are so far down the rabbit hole of your own superiority… it’s hilarious.

Again you offer up only your opinion. I wanted you to hash out for me what you see is wrong and why but for you that just means saying what you believe and then thinking that proves you right. Apparently asking you to explain why you believe as you do and arguing for that belief, I'm the one who is egotistical because I don't agree with your pronouncements. Amazingly you don't seem to see this. This is my argument and why I believe as I do that you don't really know how to make a case and you get mad when I say so.

 

[Moonbeam]

Just nonsense from you TBH.

Kind of looked to me like you took a shot at Shapiro mentioning his wife and kids and when a shot came back of a similar nature all of a sudden a different shoe dropped. TBH I don't think you are being very honest at all. Seems like you were happy to give what you were not so happy to take. There is a way to fix that, you know.

 

[cytg111]

Again you offer up only your opinion. I wanted you to hash out for me what you see is wrong and why but for you that just means saying what you believe and then thinking that proves you right. Apparently asking you to explain why you believe as you do and arguing for that belief, I'm the one who is egotistical because I don't agree with your pronouncements. Amazingly you don't seem to see this. This is my argument and why I believe as I do that you don't really know how to make a case and you get mad when I say so.

Oh I see it alright, everyone sees it just fine, "everyone has a story that leads up to their current behavior xyz and thus the pain of being a child blablabla."... And that is an EXCELLENT methodology for never holding anyone accountable for any anything, much less yourself. I guess that is ONE way to go through life.

But Ok, lets hash Peterson down to its lowest common denominator. Peterson has an audience. Peterson moves for personal profit and gain at the expense of the audience, not to its benefit. From that follows he's an asshole. Done. Yea sure, he could have an emotional moment and act out, he has also had amble time to cool down and course correct. He does not. Ergo. Asshole. Same shit with Shapiro. Assholing for personal profit. These guys are smart, they know better. Still. Assholing.

For the record. And this is at the core of your problem. You will also not *get it*, but here it is anyway: Anything you have offered up so far is just, only your opinion. (this is where you fail the mirror test).

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh I see it alright, everyone sees it just fine, "everyone has a story that leads up to their current behavior xyz and thus the pain of being a child blablabla."... And that is an EXCELLENT methodology for never holding anyone accountable for any anything, much less yourself. I guess that is ONE way to go through life.

I don't see any connection between this and your opinion of Peterson.

But Ok, lets hash Peterson down to its lowest common denominator. Peterson has an audience. Peterson moves for personal profit and gain at the expense of the audience, not to its benefit. From that follows he's an asshole. Done. Yea sure, he could have an emotional moment and act out, he has also had amble time to cool down and course correct. He does not. Ergo. Asshole. Same shit with Shapiro. Assholing for personal profit. These guys are smart, they know better. Still. Assholing.

Your argument is that if a person has an audience he manipulates at to the detriment of that audience for his own personal gain he is an asshole. OK, that's fine by me. We could go far deeper and look at what kind of an asshole that really is, how people get to be that way, but never mind that here. The problem I have been trying to tell you is, just because your chain of logic I can buy, you offer no proof at all that it applies to Peterson. He has an audience. He may profit from them. Some of them may be harmed by what he says. What you do not prove is that his primary motivation is the money, that it is wrong for him to profit and that those who are harmed are harmed by what he says or what they think they hear him say. In short out of your own knowingness you presume that your chain of logic applies to him but you never prove it the case or even offer anything. The link was about his reaction to being suspended from Twitter, a place which, I would bet, offers opportunities of exposure that could earn him money and yet he seemed to me to suggest he was glad to be rid of it.

For the record. And this is at the core of your problem. You will also not *get it*, but here it is anyway: Anything you have offered up so far is just, only your opinion. (this is where you fail the mirror test).

Not so. It is total logical crap to suggest that if a = b than a = c when you have not actually proven that b = c. You just opine and assume that is sufficient for proof. You believe that b = c and nothing more because you are blind to the assumptions you make.